Member Profile

I often forget that hard fact -- if the blockade is about security and keeping weapons out of Gaza, then why doesn't Israel let them export their goods? Is it really about security, or is it about collectively punishing a population? The evidence fits the latter suggestion, especially with the "calorie counts" and other assorted news that has come out over the years.

This just screams war crimes to me. The purpose of the blockade was and is mainly about collective punishment of the people for voting in Hamas as their democratically elected government. A significant aspect of that punishment is restricting supplies to the area and limiting the amount of food so that Palestinians stay on the "brink of malnourishment" as Juan writes. Disgusting. And so much of the American public is enamored in the propaganda that Israel is our greatest ally and what's best for Israel is best for America.

Their actions against the Palestinians and their occupation is criminal. The US' reputation around the world is tarnished by our reflexive support of Israel no matter how heinous Israel's actions get regarding Gaza and the West Bank. We could do a lot of good for America by drawing a line in the sand and not denouncing Israel's crimes (and actually meaning it).

Professor Cole, what about what's going on with the currency in Iran? I have an Iranian acquaintance who told me that the currency has dropped 50-55% since the sanctions began. 2LBs of meat in Iran currently costs around $38. And he says that the high price of food is likely to spark a riot against the government (though I'm not sure about that). But that might be what the Obama administration is aiming for with these sanctions.

But given that oil prices are up, what currency does Iran receive for it's oil? Is it dollars? If so, then the Iranian government is getting way richer than it otherwise would given it's own currency has basically halved.

It's incredible to me that Obama can talk about Iran potentially getting a nuclear weapon as a significant event that would then make other Middle East countries want nuclear weapons. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that it is Israel and their stockpile of nuclear weapons that makes other countries in that area seek nuclear weapons. In fact, it is rational for those countries to do so. Furthermore, they see what happens when they don't have a deterrence to US/Israel aggression (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). If Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence it is, US intelligence reports say it would be for defensive purposes only.

Now one solution to this conundrum is not to bomb Iran, but to negotiate through diplomacy a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, including at the the US bases in the area and a promise to remove the nuclear subs from the area. Why is this never talked about? Why did Tom Friedman praise Obama's phrasing of the situation, completely ignoring how Israel's huge stockpile of nukes is one major factor in countries like Iran seeking nukes (if they are).

Why is Israel being the local hegemon in the area the starting position of any talks? It comes down to the US and Israel wants these countries to do their bidding, and they'll use military force if necessary to force them to do as they say. We could live with a nuclear Iran, and we'd likely bankrupt our country if we started a war with them, but our imperial instincts are so strong that we are willing to attack just to continue to dictate to Iran what they should do and to ensure that Israel remains the super power in the area.